OT - Bringing back the battleship?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

OT - Bringing back the battleship?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> OT - Bringing back the battleship?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:12:56 PM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

Have any of you seen this article http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=635&cid=1&sid=27 or one like it? I stumbled upon it and it was news to me (but perhaps it is old news to those more savvy in naval warfare and theory) so I'm asking the experts.... What do you all think of the idea?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:17:42 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

The problem with the BBs, cute as they are, is the size of their crew. They would suck up as many people as it would take to run, uh, forty-twelve DDX (OK, I am exagerating, but it would take a lot of people to man one)

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 2

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:18:47 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepSix

Have any of you seen this article http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=635&cid=1&sid=27 or one like it? I stumbled upon it and it was news to me (but perhaps it is old news to those more savvy in naval warfare and theory) so I'm asking the experts.... What do you all think of the idea?

From what i've read in places like USN Proceedings, it is generally thought to be a bad idea by most (not all) because:
1. Prohibitive cost to activate
2. Prohibitive cost to operate
3. Prohibitive crew requirements
4. Vulnerability to modern weapons (esp things like napalm, fuel air explosives.)

Now, there is a very vocal minority that denies these claims. However, the seem (to me, at least) to be in the minority.

_____________________________

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 3

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:20:21 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

This argument is as old as....well I am (yikes.....)

heh...old enough that i did a Term Paper on the subject when i was in high school back in the 80's (old fart me)

It will always come down to operating cost vs. returns from use. I think the only new thing to add is that as these ships age, their upkeep becomes ever more expensive so the anti BB crowd only gains ammo as time goes by.

Pesonally i think they remain damn useful.

_____________________________

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 4

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:21:51 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

in what role nik? I see not one role that could not be done by smaller ships?
other thatn pound a beach with 16'

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 5

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:25:52 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

in what role nik? I see not one role that could not be done by smaller ships?
other thatn pound a beach with 16'

They can pound a few miles inland, also. There were some sabot rounds in development (don't think they became operational) that could go quite a ways inshore. They also wanted to put some rocket assists on the shells that would have dramatically increased range.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 6

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:29:24 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

in what role nik? I see not one role that could not be done by smaller ships?
other thatn pound a beach with 16'

Fire support for small amphibious operaitons or in support of land contingents near a coastline would be one of their main selling points at this time with the end of the Cold War having reduced the Fleet Engagement question.

I dont see that as being insignifigant.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 7

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:31:28 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

Oh heck let's bring back the GUN Navy, we have the AIR Navy and the MISSLE Navy but no GUN Navy.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 8

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:32:06 PM

ltfightr

Posts: 537
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Little Rock AR
Status: offline

Let one of those 2 BB's into a Chinese invasion TF of Tiawan and watch the the transports sink.

_____________________________

Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=3133025

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 9

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:33:47 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

ok, so what? A commander looks down from his spy in the sky.. inputs the gps position and launches the next generation flying smart bomb launched 100 miles away at high altitude from a bomber.. has same weight apx and super accurate.. now why have a slow BB? I realize the B52 is too old now.. they do need to go away... that design is a really old one!.. but untill we start bying basic non high teck stuff.. like converting 737 747 767 type planes to long range interdiction roles we are stuck with gold plated super planes... I mention this.. not htat these super planes, especially the next generation do not have there place, its just the BB's cannot be seen in any other light other than the PIGS they are for fuel etc.. not trying to belittle b52 they where great in their day.. just really old

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 10

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:34:07 PM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

Yeah, it seems like it was an old argument back when Reagan reactivated the Iowas. [Edit: by "old news" in my first post I meant this apparently recent resurgence of interest in using the BB].

As for the DD(X), is the article accurate in stating that they cost $2-$3 billion apiece, and thus only 5 of the planned 24 will be built?

I tend to agree with both sides of the BB debate (if that's possible). As you say, it comes down to cost vs. return. If the role is right, there can be an enormous return. But it would seem like "just the right job" for them comes along only sporadically, and they're tough to keep up on a constant basis. Hence the mothball practice.

I've always thought they would indeed be damn useful in the right time and place and in the right manner (in other words, for something more BB-ish than lobbing tomahawks, which can be done from other platforms). The article mentions some anticipated Marine landings (Taiwan is a familiar possibility), and I do think the BBs would be effective, but that is still some awfully expensive (and aged) amphibious support to consider.

< Message edited by DeepSix -- 4/20/2005 8:42:59 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 11

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:38:59 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

Let one of those 2 BB's into a Chinese invasion TF of Tiawan and watch the the transports sink.

Well, maybe. Assuming they each didn't get hit by several dozen Silkworms armed with shaped-charge warheads. Might be easier to stand out 60 miles and fire Harpoons from fast-movers at the transports.

I dunno - i think they are magnificent, beautiful ships which i would like to see cruising around, but i have my doubts about their usefulness in a modern warfare environment.

_____________________________

(in reply to ltfightr)

Post #: 12

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:44:07 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

A modern BB would look quite different however. Even it's main guns would probably be designed for auto-loading reducing the crew needed. This would be difficult due to the size of caliber we're talking but with technology as it is today we could build a fairly impressive ship. Engines require less crew than they did, C4 is more computerized, AA would consist of missile systems with pt defence via radar operated chain guns. Perhaps the only thing that wouldn't be needed is the massive armor that was incorporated in BB's of later days.

While I may not like the idea of making a "soft" BB, it would reduce the already extreme costs of building such a large ship to begin with. Maybe if they can get a ship based version of that laser they're testing for defense against artillery shells, IIRC that weapon isn't too far off in development and has pretty good kill ratios. Would that not improve the defense of any ship, although I would imagine that vessels would require large energy reserves to feed the bugger, which would either increase the size of the ship or practically make the vessel a floating container for batteries/generators.

Basically, I think that if we throw out the old fashioned idea of the BB and replace it with a new model you might come out with what you may refer to as a modern BC in terms of traditional terminology.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 13

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:52:08 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

A modern BB would look quite different however. Even it's main guns would probably be designed for auto-loading reducing the crew needed. This would be difficult due to the size of caliber we're talking but with technology as it is today we could build a fairly impressive ship. Engines require less crew than they did, C4 is more computerized, AA would consist of missile systems with pt defence via radar operated chain guns. Perhaps the only thing that wouldn't be needed is the massive armor that was incorporated in BB's of later days.

While I may not like the idea of making a "soft" BB, it would reduce the already extreme costs of building such a large ship to begin with. Maybe if they can get a ship based version of that laser they're testing for defense against artillery shells, IIRC that weapon isn't too far off in development and has pretty good kill ratios. Would that not improve the defense of any ship, although I would imagine that vessels would require large energy reserves to feed the bugger, which would either increase the size of the ship or practically make the vessel a floating container for batteries/generators.

Basically, I think that if we throw out the old fashioned idea of the BB and replace it with a new model you might come out with what you may refer to as a modern BC in terms of traditional terminology.

But that sounds like pretty much a new ship. They are talking about reactivating old ones.

_____________________________

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 14

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 8:52:46 PM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
...
Basically, I think that if we throw out the old fashioned idea of the BB and replace it with a new model you might come out with what you may refer to as a modern BC in terms of traditional terminology.

That's an interesting idea.... what if such new ships were "nuke-yoo-ler" powered? A BBN?

< Message edited by DeepSix -- 4/20/2005 8:55:42 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 15

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:03:00 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

Can't see what a BB can't do today that will not be done faster and more easily with planes and missiles. Either you face small opposition and BBs are not needed or you face heavy opposition and the opponent will probably have weapons able to sink the ship.

16in shells are very useful to sweep entire areas but that is not politically correct, as almost all fighting now is in urban areas full of civilians.

And you will need an industry able to produce 16in shells, that won't be used by anything else. That increases the cost of the BB operations too.

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 16

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:07:01 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

Well, heaven forbid the Eco-Freaks would find out the Navy was considering a BBN but I think it would be feasible. Though you could also look at turbine and more advanced diesel engines.

While I'd love to see an old fashioned BB I don't think it would be cost efficient. As it stands the Iowa class is ~60 years old. I think the Navy should get over them and build some new ones if they want BB's so bad. New designs would be expensive but would solve many of the deficiencies of these old ships.

I don't think that anyone would argue to keep a 60 year old DD instead of building a new one. I'll admit it has to do with the scale of the vessel but ships, no matter the size, have a life expectancy. This particular class has exceeded it, we should be happy with that.

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 17

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:12:13 PM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
...
16in shells are very useful to sweep entire areas but that is not politically correct, as almost all fighting now is in urban areas full of civilians.

And you will need an industry able to produce 16in shells, that won't be used by anything else. That increases the cost of the BB operations too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Well, heaven forbid the Eco-Freaks would find out the Navy was considering a BBN but I think it would be feasible. Though you could also look at turbine and more advanced diesel engines.

While I'd love to see an old fashioned BB I don't think it would be cost efficient. As it stands the Iowa class is ~60 years old. I think the Navy should get over them and build some new ones if they want BB's so bad. New designs would be expensive but would solve many of the deficiencies of these old ships.

I don't think that anyone would argue to keep a 60 year old DD instead of building a new one. I'll admit it has to do with the scale of the vessel but ships, no matter the size, have a life expectancy. This particular class has exceeded it, we should be happy with that.

Good points.

< Message edited by DeepSix -- 4/20/2005 9:15:57 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 18

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:18:56 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Can't see what a BB can't do today that will not be done faster and more easily with planes and missiles. Either you face small opposition and BBs are not needed or you face heavy opposition and the opponent will probably have weapons able to sink the ship.

16in shells are very useful to sweep entire areas but that is not politically correct, as almost all fighting now is in urban areas full of civilians.

And you will need an industry able to produce 16in shells, that won't be used by anything else. That increases the cost of the BB operations too.

The funny thing is that I think the US still has the plant that made the 16" shells in Nebraska. Think it was in or near Hastings. Obviously it would need to be made operational again, but that's some costs deferred.

BB's can stay on station longer, have more ammo, can be just as accurate, and I argue that it is not politically incorrect. "War" by definition is politically incorrect so I don't know where these people get this idea that certain methods of fighting should be stopped. I blame the news but thats OT in OT, so I'm not even gonna start that. <----Ignore the last sentence if you have the urge to post on that train of thought.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 19

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:26:48 PM

DeepSix

Posts: 395
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Music City
Status: offline

To further tie this question to politics -- it's probably not everyday you can get a Republican (McCain) - albeit a moderate one - a Democrat (Ted Kennedy), and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to agree on something!

_____________________________

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 20

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:36:53 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I've never bought the "can stay on station longer" arguement.

A bunch of Burkes is going to scare me more then 1 Iowa. Remember resupply ships?

Warfare has been reduced to he who shoots first with overwelming firepower wins. You think you are going to have a stealthy BB? Simple math exercise really. The more targets, the higher the survivability. No idea what the costs would be, but you could probably get a 8 or more to 1 ratio. 8+ firing on 1, who do you really think is going to win?

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 21

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:41:39 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

And (furthering what Frag said) you don't need to sink the BB. Just get a mission kill by shredding its radar/sensors etc.

Anyhow, I do love BBs (and have been on a couple of the Iowa class as a tourist. Heck, I even bought the baseball cap) but they are just too expensive to run compared to the effectiveness of what that many people and dollars could run in other hulls.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 22

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:46:07 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I've never bought the "can stay on station longer" arguement.

A bunch of Burkes is going to scare me more then 1 Iowa. Remember resupply ships?

Warfare has been reduced to he who shoots first with overwelming firepower wins. You think you are going to have a stealthy BB? Simple math exercise really. The more targets, the higher the survivability. No idea what the costs would be, but you could probably get a 8 or more to 1 ratio. 8+ firing on 1, who do you really think is going to win?

Well, I agree that the Navy went to DD's as a primary vessel because swarming your opponent is better in terms of survivability. If the ship was a BBN, fuel is out of the equation but then you still have food, ammo, and misc. stuff. You actually can have a stealth BB these days, no joking. Designers have played with the idea but no one will bite. If the US Navy ever goes back to BB's it would be due to a new threat, or a niche role that is needed. Though I guess you could get away with building a ship stylised after the Graff Spee. Something like a 16" gun system fitted to the smallest vessel possible.

On who would win?...dunno luck has a lot to do with victory and defeat. We try to minimize this but it still has a factor, especially when both sides have parity.

Gotta go to class, cya later...

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 23

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:48:38 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Preventing a hit is definately the best option given today's reliance on modern electronics. However survivability is still important. A mission killed Iowa is still better than 2 sunk Burkes. There is also the question of survival when it comes to command/control. A Fleet commander and his staff have a better chance of surviving in an Iowa than in any other ship type. (assuming a hit is scored)

_____________________________

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 24

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:49:33 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

My two cents:

Without addressing the costs and other downsides to reactivating the glorious BB's, my gut reaction is to have at least one around. Those that argue technology is the answer make me nervous. Rumsfeld is the ultimate advocate for an all high-tech military. But his shock and awe campaign nearly failed because he forgot some simple truths that high-tech has not yet solved: it takes grunts on the ground to secure and occupy a country. Our gee-whiz weaponry is subject to countermeasures, but we haven't faced an opponent able to employ them. GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil. Unless they bugger things up, China is the next superpower. I believe their military power will equal if not surpass the U.S. in our lifetime - if not the next twenty years - and they will have an economy and military at least as comfortable with high-tech as ours.

All this goes to one point. The U.S. relies on high-tech, and it works because no one has been wealthy enough to compete with the U.S. in military high-tech since WWII, and the U.S. has always been a step ahead in the high-tech field. That will change. On the other end of the scale, high-tech doesn't always work when your facing not lower-tech but no-tech. High-tech didn't save our bacon in Viet Nam. Hence, I don't want to put all my eggs in the high-tech basket.

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. In addition, the BBs have unique abilities that no other ships possess such as big guns, thick armor, and high survivability. I can't to what uses these capabilities may be put in the future, but I like the idea of having a ship that has strengths and capabilities completely different from any other ship. What's more, it's a weapon system that no one will trump by building a bigger or better one. For my own toolbox, I'd rather have 19 wrenches and 1 screwdriver than 20 wrenches.

< Message edited by byron13 -- 4/20/2005 10:26:26 PM >

(in reply to DeepSix)

Post #: 25

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 9:59:06 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried.

That one's funny ... thats just the classic military nonsense. If I manage to pop off a nuke within range of your 16" guns, you're not going to be worried about the guns still being able to fire.

In an EMP environment, you have already gone to nukes ... a BB is not going to make any difference at all.

Bring on the Ohio's, the ULTIMATE survivable BB

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 26

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 10:00:07 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil

A free fall bomb that only is receiving telemtry and adjusting fins is almost undetectable and impossible by most standards to shoot down.. How can you justify this statment?

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 27

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 10:00:09 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that.

Sure there is, it's called a submarine and it's also a hell of a lot cheaper to get a fleet of very quiet diesel boats for coastal defence.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 28

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 10:00:58 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell.

Just out of curiosity - the 16" shell moves at something like 1000 mph, which is in the same range as some of the soviet antiship missiles. Could a CIW like Phalanx or Goalkeeper shoot a shell down (or blow it up)?

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 29

RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship? - 4/20/2005 10:03:37 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

not an ap shell I recon

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> OT - Bringing back the battleship?